I am upset with Pinko.
Indeed. Knowingly false and malice are what get you over the hurdles. Opinion, jokes, mockery, parody, satire, etc., all fall short for both public and private citizens though.
All you have to do is look at the trashtalk the Founding Fathers and early political candidates published about each other in the newspapers back then to get an idea of just how far the First Amendment was intended to stretch in this context. I mean, those dudes published shit about each other that would send people into inconsolable conniption fit rages these daysâŚaccusations of pedophilia, heresy, you name itâŚpractically nothing was off limits.
4 Likes
It was brutal. We think of drawing rooms and powdered wigs but if youâre not versed in the history you have no idea.
5 Likes
ââŚbecause Thomas Jefferson is the son of a half-breed Indian squaw raised on wholecakesâŚ:â
Cracks me the fuck up.
2 Likes
Way cover all the bases
Goooooooooaaaaaaalllllllllll !!!
2 Likes
Does anyone remember Nunes giving numerous press conferences and issuing statements when Leslie Jones was being harrassed and threatened on twitter? I donât.
1 Like
see rowlandson in Britain and all early cartoons from 1770 onwards hereâŚthose guys were not afraid to roll in the mud
2 Likes
Hope it costs him millions to do this.
The man shows over and over and over how stupid he is.
2 Likes
One the one hand, Mr Nunes and his 3rd rate attorney may really think their suit has some legal merit or something⌠but itâs hard to believe that even they are quite that stupid.
So why DID they file (in Henrico County, Virginia before a state court, n.b.)?
- attack suit to harass certain individuals with legal costs?
- attack suit to get discovery against Twitter?
- because they (or someone behind them) KNEW that the many ludicrous tweets would be widely circulated and widely mocked, thus raising base ire and raising funds before 2020?
- because they knew it would be mocked, creating base ire and a chance to profit from corrupt fund-raising for their own pockets?
- a run at NYT vs. Sullivan inspired by Justice Thomasâs public musings?
So many possibilities! Somehow, the way the suit is laid out in the court document suggests that actually persuading a court is not very high on counselâs list of priorities, though.
4 Likes
I wonder, is this whining little dipfuck aware that there are news networks other than Fox?
1 Like
Nunes: STOP HARASSING YOUR COWS!
1 Like
Nunes is a whiny little b***h. Pure and simple.
I donât know why Devin Nunes did not ask Congress pass a law to protect and safeguard his feelings while the Republicans had all three branches of government? He was also in charge of a key committee in Congress and could have called on the FBI to unmask his critics and the IRS to go after them. He had all to the legal and enforcement tools to unleash his conservative values on his critics.
He could have also called on Cuck Kushner, who used intelligence resources to help his WhatsApp sugar daddy Halal Butcher and Saudi Prince Mo Bin S.A.W. identify and extort money from his critics.
Devin is a âStalking Cowâ for Team Trump who want to take the edge off the Mueller report by says that Dems write false bad things on Twitter so they are the same as the Russian bots.
3 Likes
Oh such a delicate little flower current year now. However you canât have a both ways dear, you canât have your cake and eat it too. If you want everything equal that means that we can take the president of the United States to task just like that and that would be YouTube. Be careful what you wish for
By the way you are one of the main reasons that the Republicans lost the house of representatives you and your fake hearings and your lack of interest in what the White House was doing see how you are. You donât like being held accountable for doing nothing and let that renegade in the White House at trader run wild and do whatever every wants weâre not done yet the senates coming up next and so is the presidents The Democrats will take the Senate back and will take the presidency we will have all three branches and you better buckle up baby see what we do next. You are the reason our country is in the state it since you are part of the problem not the solution therefore you will be held accountable like it or not if you donât like it and get out of the kitchen. You like to dish it but you canât take it.
There is a downside to being done with little turd blossom it does stink doesnât it.
Thatâs fine, Iâm a private individual and people are legally allowed to make fun of me.
1 Like
Does he have a COWlick?
Early presidential campaigns were vile.
2 Likes
âBut her emailsâ, amiright Devin, you pathetic loser?
1 Like
So we can all have a little legal context I am quoting the official syllabus to Hustler Magazine, Inc. v Falwell, 485 US 46(1988). I donât see how shadow banning is entitled to any greater protection than intentional infliction of mental distress.
Syllabus
Respondent, a nationally known minister and commentator on politics and public affairs, filed a diversity action in Federal District Court against petitioners, a nationally circulated magazine and its publisher, to recover damages for, inter alia, libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress arising from the publication of an advertisement âparodyâ which, among other things, portrayed respondent as having engaged in a drunken incestuous rendezvous with his mother in an outhouse. The jury found against respondent on the libel claim, specifically finding that the parody could not âreasonably be understood as describing actual facts . . . or events,â but ruled in his favor on the emotional distress claim, stating that he should be awarded compensatory and punitive damages. The Court of Appeals affirmed, rejecting petitionersâ contention that the âactual maliceâ standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, must be met before respondent can recover for emotional distress. Rejecting as irrelevant the contention that, because the jury found that the parody did not describe actual facts, the ad was an opinion protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, the court ruled that the issue was whether the adâs publication was sufficiently outrageous to constitute intentional infliction of emotional distress.
Held: In order to protect the free flow of ideas and opinions on matters of public interest and concern, the First and Fourteenth Amendments prohibit public figures and public officials from recovering damages for the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress by reason of the publication of a caricature such as the ad parody at issue without showing in addition that the publication contains a false statement of fact which was made with âactual malice,â i.e., with knowledge that the statement was false or with reckless disregard as to whether or not it was true. The Stateâs interest in protecting public figures from emotional distress is not sufficient to deny First Amendment protection to speech that is patently offensive and is intended to inflict emotional injury when that speech could not reasonably have been interpreted as stating actual facts about the public figure involved. Here, respondent is clearly a âpublic figureâ for First Amendment purposes, and the lower courtsâ finding that the ad parody was not reasonably believable must be accepted. âOutrageousnessâ [p47] in the area of political and social discourse has an inherent subjectiveness about it which would allow a jury to impose liability on the basis of the jurorsâ tastes or views, or perhaps on the basis of their dislike of a particular expression, and cannot, consistently with the First Amendment, form a basis for the award of damages for conduct such as that involved here. Pp. 50-57.
797 F.2d 1270, reversed.
REHNQUIST, C.J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which BRENNAN, MARSHALL, BLACKMUN, STEVENS, OâCONNOR, and SCALIA, JJ., joined. WHITE, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, post, p. 57. KENNEDY, J., took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
You will notice the decision wasnât even close. How does Nunes think his case will fair?
2 Likes